"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Denouncing Baptist Identity Fundamentalism

Southern Baptist pastor Wiley Drake of California (pictured to the left), is the former Vice-President of the SBC. Drake is quoted by Associated Baptist Press as saying he is glad Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor from Wichita, was murdered last week while attending church. Drake confessed to having been personally praying "imprecatory" Psalms over Dr. Tiller for the last year.

Drake goes on to say that he has been praying "imprecatory" Psalms over President Obama and the same fate awaits Obama that befell Tiller if he does not repent.

My friend, Dwight McKissic, has called on Southern Baptists to repudiate Wiley Drake's words. I join Pastor McKissic in denouncing what Wiley Drake has said. Our Southern Baptist Convention should take official action as well. Drake's words should be a reminder to all of the logical end of Baptist Identity Fundamentalism.

The world should know that Drake's words, nor any other Baptist Identity radical viewpoints, represents the views of the vast majority of Southern Baptists.

(Update; Please note that this post is a denunciation of Wiley Drake's WORDS and not his person, and it is a caution against Baptist Identity ideology, not BI people).

154 comments:

"Imprecatory psalm" is just a euphemism for "curse." Basically, what Wiley Drake has been saying is that he has been praying for God to curse the man who was killed. Last time I checked, Christians weren't into putting curses on people.

Or if one were doing one of those analogy tests, one could say:

"Imprecatory psalm" is to curse as "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is to torture. Once I would have also said, last time I checked, Christians weren't into torture, but unfortunately, recent polls reveal that many evangelicals are not concerned that more than 100 prisoners in the war on terror have died in American custody, nor are they concerned about the manner of their deaths.

We are living in strange times, where not only have Christians gotten away from basic standards of decent behavior, but they are willing to twist language in order to self-deceive themselves that certain types of wrongdoing are ok--i.e. cursing some people and torturing others.

Whatever happened to the commandment, "Love your enemies, and do good to them."?

While I am NOT happy he was murdered at all - as a matter of fact I think people who advocate or are happy about someone being murdered are a few bricks short and need to be in jail... it is hard for me to not be happy about the fact that at least there will be one doc not doing abortions - especially the late term variety. Dr. Tiller was responsible for untold numbers of dead babies.

You know I share your dislike for much of the BI platform. But I have to agree with Dave Miller on this one: this is not a BI thing. The attitude of radical opposition to disagreeing parties may be characteristic of both the BI and Tiller's murderer, but I don't think you can fairly link the two parties.

But with the thrust of your post I can agree. It is as my pastor said this morning: nobody can have it both ways. You can't denounce the ending of life in murderer if you support the ending of life in abortion. But nor can you support the murder of Tiller if you do not support the murder called abortion.

"The Rev. Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, has proposed a resolution that would celebrate the election of the first African-American U.S. president "as a significant contribution to the ongoing cause of racial reconciliation."

McKissic has submitted a draft to a Southern Baptist committee, which will decide whether it should be put to a vote at the denomination's annual meeting June 23-24 in Louisville."

Please read this commentary on Obama by Eric Redmond...also 2nd -Vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention.2007-2008

http://theologica.blogspot.com/search?q=Eric+Redmond

"My humble proposal of an attempt to be Christocentric rather than Afrocentric will not be received with approval by many African Americans that I know. I hope to live long enough to witness another African American become a candidate for President of the United States of America—a candidate who is pro-life and pro-righteousness. Yet my hope may ring hollow to many other African Americans who are celebrating a Democratic victory that happens to seem pro-African American. To the celebrants, I might be labeled as sore loser seeking to justify his reasons for siding with conservative white America rather than with Black America.In writing elsewhere about "how I have wrestled through the Christian version of the Uncle Tom epithet" (with respect to my embracing of Reformed Theology), I have penned this thought:

If a person would allow himself to be pigeonholed into becoming a person of a nationalistic or ethno-centric thought out of the fear of being viewed as an Oreo or Uncle Tom, then Reformed Theology is not for that person. But neither is the Gospel, for the Gospel calls each of us to stand against an ethnic-centered philosophy of one's own race, for such a philosophy is naturally conformed to this present world and is in need of redemption. If you cannot stand against your own culture where it does not square with the Scriptures, you are the one who is ashamed of Christ, and such shame has nothing to with philosophical or ontological Blackness; it only has to do with your view of the majesty of the God who calls you to deny yourself in order to follow Christ. ("Sovereign in a Sweet Home, Schooling, and Solace," in Glory Road: Our Journey Into Reformed Christianity, ed. Anthony Carter [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, Wheaton, forthcoming])"

i don't understand what "baptist identity" has to do with this post. exactly what battle are you fighting? if you're against murder, then say it - then others might be able to give you an amen. i for one can't endorse this post anywhere else because i'm not sure what your agenda is in throwing "baptist identity" into this fire.

Besides BI not being quite as connected to the idiocy of Wiley Drake, I don't see any reason why we couldn't pass a resolution distancing ourselves from his words. I did a quick partial skim of the resolutions and found 11 that had only to do with individuals. It's not like there isn't precedent to make a resolution responding to one person. It would be nice to pass a resolution that both generated positive press and reflected the mind of Christ for a change.

What's the difference between and imprecatory psalm and a curse? According to the dictionary, they are the same thing. NT scripture forbids cursing. "Out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. I tell you brethren it ought not to be so!" (James 3:10)Jesus said that even a person calling someone else a fool would be liable to the hell of fire. How much more so for uttering curses. As I read the NT, we are only commanded to bless our enemies and do good to them. Imprecations and curses may have been considered okay in OT times, but under Christ we are held to a higher standard, don't you agree? We don't get to pick and choose what commandments we obey.

Mr Liam Madden:Did you read the article I linked too in the last post and this post.Answers your questions!BTW ....the founding Christian Fathers of this country often prayed imprecatory prayers against the British....I am glad he heard and delivered us from the tyranny of the crown.

As a Reformed baptist I probably hold to a different view of the OT and NT then you seem to advocate...its all one Biblical.See also Paula's posts on the previous topic.

finally I personally heard Danny Akin say that anyone who touches that stuff(Alcohol) is a fool then he repeated it from the pulpit. Is he in danger of hell fire? That was at Two Rivers here in Nashville.

I read the article; however, I can only agree with the final paragraph or two. But my point still stands that the term "imprecatory prayer" is an oxymoron.

The dictionary definition of "imprecation" is "a curse/to curse". Are we Christians to practice a special form of "cursing prayer"? I just don't think the term is very useful or has any place in normative Christian belief and practice.

If we use the phrase "imprecatory prayer" knowing what the words clearly mean, it makes us look as if we are not obeying NT scripture which forbids cursing someone. If we use the phrase without a proper understanding of the meaning of the words, it make us look like we don't know English. Neither result is good.

"The Rev. Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, has proposed a resolution that would celebrate the election of the first African-American U.S. president "as a significant contribution to the ongoing cause of racial reconciliation."

There is absolutely no way I could ever support that. We need to get out of politics completely in the SBC. This would be used as an affirmation by the Obama crowd of his policies. They will not separate the concept from politics.

Why 'disfellowship' Wiley Drake?Why not go and hold a candle prayer vigil outside of his church instead?What do we know of this man? He is aging, maybe he is on medication and is not himself?He was once embraced and promoted to high office in the SBC. Now that he is an embarassment, you would push him away and say 'we do not know this man'?

I think he needs to be embraced once again, not with 'honors' and 'titles', but in Christian compassion: he has gotten a little bit lost here. He is your brother. He needs his Christian family to come and help him find his way back home.

No one is unimportant. No one is 'dispensable'. All are needed.All deserve to be loved and cared for. We are servants, not judges.

I hope someone helps this man. I think he is not well. Don't worry about 'being embarassed'. Worry about your lost brother. It is a family thing. Don't desert him. Pray about it. Love, L's

I would agree Lynda. I couldn't support the resolution either. When he was elected I said, "I'll allow him to prove himself." He has, just not in a way I consider positive. His policies, not his race are my objections. And the liberal press would have a field day with the SBC "celebrating" a pro homosexual, pro abortion, Muslichristian president.

This post will very rank high on a list of your worst posts. Baptist Identity has absolutely nothing to do with "imprecatory" prayers. Peter denounced Tiller's murder as a "wicked" thing. You asked me Friday if I agreed with Drake, and I plainly told you and the world that I did not.

This post then must be regarded as nothing more than a smear tactic. Truly sad coming from someone who says he opposes such politics. Being a Southern Baptist yourself, you are just as "linked" to Wiley Drake as Peter, myself, or anyone in the "BI" crowd. I guess you just "denounced" yourself.

Did the guy in South Carolina call for "Say Something Nice Sunday" to be followed by "Smear Someone Negatively Monday"?

The belief that abstinence is 'holiness before God and obedience to Christ" is the same philosophy that drives Wiley to pray imprecatory psalms.

Wade,

I have made no secret about disagreeing with your particular brand of ecumenical, left-wing, "It's all good" theology. However, the above is over the top even for you. Without question, that is the single most ridiculous comment of yours I have ever read. Are you off your meds?

Drake's comments alone are enough to warrant disassociation from the SBc in the absence of repentance by Drake. The BI issue is separate. I am really surprised that some folks are saying we should ignore Drake and some folks are saying the BI issue is more important.

There is nothing more important that being Christ-like and seeking repentance from those who are not acting in His love.

Robert - concerning the Christian founders: Is it possible that Christians praying against Great Britain were wrong? Seems to me that the Christian thing to do is to obey authority. By the way, the whole revolutionary thing was heavily based on Enlightment philosophy and not on Biblical Christianity.

I don't know you but you sound like the kind of Christian, as am I, who believes that "the criterion by which Scripture is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

I don't know if you are a Southern Baptist, but if not, you should know that they took that line out of the Baptist Faith and Message statement, the official creed of the SBC, a few years ago.

Therefore, for some folks, "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock" (Psalm 137:9) carries the same spiritual and ethical authority as "Love your enemies and do good to them."

I understand that we are not to "condemn." God does that. However, we must come to judgments about people (1 Cor. 5 and 1 John 4).

Wiley Drake is not merely a sick old person. He is a person of influence. There are many who call him "pastor." His influence has been so great in the SBC that he has held prominant positions. He is influential.

To be silent on this matter is to condone Drake. I cannot do that.

As regards to prayer, the prayer I was taught to pray has worship of the Sovereign God for its beginning, the purpose of God at its heart, forgiveness in Spirit, and deliverance from evil as its conclusion.

We must forgive Drake, yet we cannot allow his example of prayer to influence others, especially those who depend on him for spiritual guidance.

Good call on the public denouncing of Drake.

And, as far as the Baptist Identity thing goes, I am not sure what all that movement stands for, nor do I care one bit, however Fundamentalism has its dangers. I appreciate your warnings of its inherent dangers as an approach to Christianity.

Robert, Instead of linking, why not write it for yourself. Tom asked a fair question---Do you support Drake's call for praying the imprecatory psalms as it relates to Obama. Its not hard......Do you do everything that is mentioned in the O.T. Stoning rebellious children is also part of the O.T.===Bible===Do you support that?

I don't always agree with the B.I. folks. Yet, to paint Wiley's outrageous comments as reflective of the philosophy of the B.I. guys is a HUGE stretch. This post is an example of attempting to strengthen one's own philosophy by pointing out the most extremist views of one individual. Unfortunately this kind of post that creates dissention is exactly why it is difficult for many Southern Baptists to get along. We need reconciliation between Christ loving Baptists, not rhetoric like this: "see what B.I. philosophy leads to, etc. etc." Certainly the other side has been guilty of that too. Yes, there are times that loving confrontation is needed. But this harsh post of using Wiley to hit the B.I. guys is not an example of such a time. In other words, this is not an example of "being nice." And no, the "disclaimer" at the end does not excuse the tone and content of the post.

I have a "vitural" honorary Baptist Identity ID card which was issued to me by Dr. Barber. So I guess I've been "grafted in" as BI guy. :)

[How's that for a mouth full: A Baptist Identity Identification Card ??!!]

I don't care if you are or are not a BI guy. There is way more that bonds Christians together than separates them. Or at least there should be.

As it regards Imprecatory prayer. I find that in this case it is unnecessary.

(a) The abortion doctor is already dead. I doubt that Wiley Drake's imprecatory prayer had much to do with his murder.

(b) The murderer has been caught. My understanding is that he will be tried in Kansas. If he is convicted by a jury he will receive appropriate punishment. I don't know what the evidence will be that will be presented to the jury. If the evidence is as early news reports indicate then it is likely that the defendent will be convicted of some type of murder and serve a long prison term. I don't know if Kansas has the death penalty or not. But if so, then it is possible that the defendent will be facing execution by the state.

As to Wiley Drake, he is a gadfly and a loose cannon. With kudos to to Ronald Reagan my message to Wiley Drake is, "... there you go again ... "

I'm not worried about Wiley Drake. If he issues an "imprecatory prayer" against me then I'll just have to deal with it.

I don't know if you are a Southern Baptist, but if not, you should know that they took that line out of the Baptist Faith and Message statement, the official creed of the SBC, a few years ago.

Thank God they did since it gave libs (who call themselves Mainstream) the option of saying "Oh well, that CAN'T be scripture since Christ is too loving to (for example) call homosexuality a sin".

Therefore, for some folks, "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock" (Psalm 137:9) carries the same spiritual and ethical authority as "Love your enemies and do good to them."

Three words for you--context is key. It's called bible exposition. You might want to try it for kicks sometime.

I don't know that I would call it a "precatory" prayer, but I do pray that God would "STOP" all of those involved in killing little babies by the millions in the most horrendous manner imaginable. Let God decide how He prefers to do the stopping, but God forgive me for not doing all that I can, within His will, to stop it.

I do believe God expects us to take action to stop the killing of the innocent. Simply praying for God to "stop" those who are killing the babies is far from what should be expected of the church today.

God will hold us accountable for our inaction and relative silence concerning what is the worse case of infanticide of history. Our perspectives and priorities are puzzling to me.

Have you ever looked at websites like http://www.priestsforlife.org that show vivid images of the victims? It’s ugly. It’s repulsive. We don’t want to see it. But why aren’t we showing these horrible images to those sitting in the pews on Sunday mornings? The images should be burned into our minds so that we can never be at peace until it is stopped. Maybe then we would hear a greater outcry from the pulpits and from the Southern Baptist Convention on a continuing basis than we will about someone who murdered a murderer.

I am with Liam Madden on his position on imprecatory prayers. Just because the Psalter contains them, does not mean that we are allowed to pray them publically to slander others (Matt. 5:21-26).

If anything, imprecatory prayers are a tool that God may give us to direct our anger aroused by injustice to God as an act of trust that He will right the wrong in due time. It is a form of "casting our cares" on the Lord.

It is not the justification of harboring anger and hatred toward those who are evil, rather it is a way of releasing that anger and hate.

I think that is wise to keep our prayers "in our closet" just as Jesus commanded, and not broadcasted on a radio show.

I like those of you who want no criterion of interpretation for scripture. You seem to like being able to pick and choose scripture. Therefore, you pick and choose the scriptures you like to justify yourself. Wiley Drake is good at that too. So are those who covered for Darrell Gilyard. That is the Pharisaical approach to scripture. We follow the rules because God said them and we do not try to understand the coherence behind them. Jesus said that the law is summed up in love to God and neighbor. That means that the scriptures are interpreted in this light, not that love is one among many rules.

I am with Pastor Wade on this one. Wiley Drake influences many who cannot stand for themselves. They must know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated in Baptist life.

Talk is cheap. Resolutions don't get anything done for the Kingdom. If no action is taken against Wiley Drake by the SBC, there is not much credibility left in the organization. I do not comprehend the reasoning of some of you who wish to ignore Drake and some who imply support for the murder of Tiller. If EVER there was a case for disassociation of a church, this is it!!

I hope we don't have to add "failure to take action against Drake" to the long list of shameful deeds perpetrated by SBC leaders. Klouda, Patterson's and Land's self-righteous drivel, etc.

My next prayer will include thanks to God for the wisdom of our ancestors who produced the policy of local church autonomy. The SBC may finally slip into total irrelevancy in Louisville.

Stephen said: "Is it possible that Christians praying against Great Britain were wrong? Seems to me that the Christian thing to do is to obey authority."

I was in a political board where we went many rounds on this issue. I couldn't possibly paste all the discussion here, but there were excellent arguments on both sides.

Personally, I think the crux of the whole American Revolution regarding Christianity is this: is a government that breaks its own laws to be obeyed? I'm no historian but I don't think England's own laws allowed it to do what it was doing to the colonists, which was taxation without representation. Then there is the matter of whether England had the right to claim "the colonies" at all, since not all of them were composed entirely of subjects to the crown, and many were religious refugees. So again, the question is what the Christian response should be to a government that breaks its own laws, as well as our response to a government whose laws are against God.

In the US, it should be noted that our own government is routinely violating the Constitution. It tramples rights, legalizes murder, does not judge impartially, confiscates land, etc. etc. etc. It is the government itself which has broken the law, not citizens who oppose it. So to rebel against lawbreakers is in accord with the laws of our land. Something to think about anyway.

Instead of “praying the imprecatory psalms” over Obama, Tiller, or anyone else evolved with, or supporter of, infanticide/abortion… Should not those of us who are “Reformed” be praying that our Sovereign God would intervene in their lives and by his “Irresistible Grace” call them to Repentance and Salvation?

Would not the Salvation of a Tiller, or setting President, bring God far more glory than their death?

It appears that Wiley does not speak for the SBC, nor does he speak for any of the local churches that are apparently represented here, his own testimony reflects a lack of qualification to pastor among own church body due to poor reputation in his own community and an obvious misunderstanding of scripture. Frankly, I am not sure where that leaves him…maybe his congregation will know and act.

1 Timothy 3:2-7 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (3) not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. (4) He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (5) (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), (6) and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. (7) And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Originally Posted by theogenes View Posthow do impreccatory prayers square with matt5:44, "but i say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."?

Also, in the lord's prayer, we pray "deliver us from evil". We pray for god to deliver us from evil which i believe would include our enemies, but we leave it up to him as to how he delivers us, whether he destroys them or converts them.if matthew 5:44 denied the validity of imprecatory prayers, then it would make the prayers of david (like psalm 58) at odds with it. I'm not ready to accept such a proposition, as such prayers are ultimately seeking judgment. The judgment of the lord is definitely something that is neither abrogated nor passed away in christ- rather, it is given even greater clarity through the nt... Cumulating in the second coming.

If i use a man-centered idea of what is love or good, i could not reconcile this. However, matthew does not state or even imply that imprecatory prayers are not appropriate, based on the standard of love and goodness that is the lord. Note how psalm 58 ends-

"(10)the righteous shall rejoice when he sees the veneance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked, (11)so that men will say, 'surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely he is a god who judges in the earth.'"

the glorification of god before the world is the end desire of the prayer. The imprecatory prayer is guided by the love of god and his glory upon the earth. Also noteworthy is the declaration by the world (who are wicked) of the sovereignty of god. If i pray such a thing for the wicked- that god would break them to the core that they would turn to him, how does this defy the context of matthew 5:44?

It does not. What better blessing for a wicked man than to be brought to his knees before the lord? What greater love can we give to a pursuing infidel than to give him the gospel of our dear saviour, praying that he would bring them to repentance? Do we not see in the psalter that the thrust of the imprecatory prayer is that of breaking the pride of foolish men? Oh, that god would have heard such a prayer 'against' me when i was yet a youth, that i would not have spent half of my life hating him!

Therefore, as i see it, an imprecatory prayer, heartfelt, sincere and with passion... Imploring god that the wicked be broken by him, is one of the most important, deepest in meaning and unfortunately neglected supplications we can make before the throne of grace.

I have so stated in other forums that Wiley Drake is "not a half-bubble off plumb, his bubble is not even in the sight-glass". I still stand by that.

For the previous 8 years, we were urged from the pulpit (many times) that we must follow the lead of Our President no matter what. A lot of us didn't like it, but regardless of your viewpoint, 'the patriot' respects the office, if nothing else.

However, as Christians, we are held to a bit higher standard. I guess these passages are not in Wiley's version which he carries:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ... For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." - Romans 13:1, 4-7

"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for...kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." - 1 Timothy 2:1-2

Paul was always a whack job, wasn't he? Perhaps someone would like to venture an opinion with respect to the infallibility of those scriptures?

Instead of “praying the imprecatory psalms” over Obama, Tiller, or anyone else evolved with, or supporter of, infanticide/abortion… Should not those of us who are “Reformed” be praying that our Sovereign God would intervene in their lives and by his “Irresistible Grace” call them to Repentance and Salvation?

Would not the Salvation of a Tiller, or setting President, bring God far more glory than their death?

Just a thought…

[sarcasm mode = on (for the humor imparied)]

What fun is that, Greg? Wouldn't it be a whole lot more fun to pray hellfire and damnation down on someone, and see them killed by an assassin, or their airplane get hit by a meteor, or a bolt of lightning hit them on a clear day, rather than see them repent and do God's will?

"I think that is wise to keep our prayers "in our closet" just as Jesus commanded, and not broadcasted on a radio show. "

Tim, You have hit on something here that bothers me the most about imprecatory prayers. What it does to the person praying them and making it public with delight thinking it worked and will work again.

Wiley Drake's comments lead us to believe that he thinks his imprecatory prayer against Tiller worked.

What next? Obama, he says.

Think of the implications of what this is doing to Drake and his followers.

We know that many SBC leaders think of themselves like this. Charles Stanley said that those who went against him at his church got cancer or lost their jobs. He thought very highly of himself and his position.

So, this thinking is not limited to Drake. It is a part of who we have become.

In contrast to Drake, I think of what happened in my city that 10 years ago had 4 large abortion mills. Christians spent their own money opening crisis pregnancy centers that they purposely opened real close to each abortion mill. Day after day, year after year they prayed on the street for the hearts of those going in. They offered free 3-D ultrasounds so that women could see the baby. They offered help with medical bills, rent, clothes, jobs, adoptions. In the meantime,because of the love of Christians putting their money where their mouth is, many of these young women came to saving Faith. Not all, but many.

It worked. Now we are down to one abortion mill. The others closed due to lack of business.

God was Glorified when Norma McCorvey (Jane Doe) became a Born Again believer. Not because she was gunned down and Christians claimed it was due to their imprecatory prayers against her.

AMEN, Lydia! That echoes something I have been saying for years, that if we Christians would get off our pews and offer a tangible alternative to abortion--something other than whine about Roe v. Wade and now "impcecatory" psalms--it would have an effect. But most of "us" seem to want nothing more than to use the government as an extension of the church to outlaw abortion--which, if it happened, I suspect would be about as effective as Prohibition was.

When I lived in North Carolina, I found that the state Convention there had facilities for unwed mothers who were willing to give birth then put their babies up for adoption. I said, "Great!" Then I found out that they had maybe two dozen beds/spaces available in the WHOLE state! That helped a lot, didn't it? And all the Baptists in NC wanted to do was argue over inerrancy and political control of the convention.

I recently spoke to the head of a major charity here in Maryland about unwed pregnancies. She told me that one probblem they have is that they try to get these unwed mothers into churches, but they find little acceptance and a lot of condemnation instead of love.

Maybe we should direct some of these imprecatory psalms against ourselves.

"I will admit I may be wrong...factly incorrect ....but I do not think anyone has demanded that imprecatory prayers must be public."

Robert, that may be the whole point. Wiley made it public and set himself up as a sort of 'god' claiming it was HIS prayers that killed Tiller. That is scary stuff.

Just a side note realizing the context is different but listen to the martyred saints in heaven:

Rev 6

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

I have some honest questions for my more conservative brothers. I'm not trying to "set anyone up," I am just trying to understand.

Robert from "Geneva," you seem to suggest that we must use all of the Bible, not just the New Testament (please correct me if I am wrong). I agree with that, at least to an extent; but you seem to take that farther than I am confortable with--to the extent of praying these imprecatory psalms or curses over those with whom you drastically disagree. Your reasoning, as I can discern it, is that (1) they are used by David and perhaps others, in times of actual war, and are found in the Book of Psalms; (2) they (apparently) are acceptable in Reformed theology, or at least by some in Reformed theology (I followed your link; the writer seemed awfully angry to me); and (3) they were used by American preachers towards the British during the Revolutionary War (BTW, they were also used by Southern preachers and Confederate chaplains against "d--- Yankees" during the Civil War, for what that's worth). At the risk of oversimplification, is this your position? Have I left anything significant out?

I have read some good, conservative commentators who have said, "all of the Bible is for us, not not all of it was written to us." That would seem to suggest to me that not everything that was part of the Abrahamic Covenant applies to the church today under the New Covenant. If correct, it would explain why Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." I am sure you are aware that the word piadagogon is mistranslated here, that the word actually referred to a slave who had the authority to discipline (whip or beat) a student who failed to learn his lesson rather than the teacher himself, hence the NIV translation as "under supervision" instead. It would also seem to me to explain why Jesus asked the father to forgive those who crucified Him, rather than calling on the Father to damn them or even stop them.

Lydia:Again I may be wrong....but you did not hear him pray before George Tillers death was announced at least to the whole world on Foxnews.

What bothers me about this conversation is that no one has directly answered the question as to whether they are Biblical.If you say no...like Mr Liam Madden then how do you address what David and others prayed in the psalms.Unless you abrogate the OT with the NT like he did in his statement.

So I ask again......Are imprecatory prayers unbiblical?

The question is not.... is what Wiley drake said unBiblical.

Lastly why can people not picket abortion clinics...help in care facility...be politically active on that issue......and pray imprecatory prayers.I know of many people that do that the evangelical world.

Someone suggested that Dwight McKissic's proposed resolution "that would celebrate the election of the first African-American U.S. president 'as a significant contribution to the ongoing cause of racial reconciliation'" is itself a racist remark, and/or proof that Brother Dwight is a racist. I must say that defies all logic. Maybe--MAYBE--if you had lived as a minority, you would have the right to judge whetgher or not Brotther Dwight is too much focused on "blackness" and too little focused on Gospel; but unless you are, I challenge your right to,assert that.

On the contrary, this resolution applaudes a victory over racism, without affirming President Obama's policies. We in the SBC have hidden behind a veil of thinly disguised racism long enough, and those of you from the Deep South (as I am) know that all too well. Might some misinterpret or misrepresent such a resolution? Certainly--there is always someone eager to do so. But that would be between this hypothetical person and God, and I have faith God is able to sort it all out.

Christine has made some suggestions, early in the comment thread, that I think no one has picked up on. She suggested embracing Wiley, praying for him, and even holding a vigil outside the church he serves. Christine: I think that is great!

I am certainly opposed to what Wiley has said he did and is doing. I think he is theologically wrong. But I have to ask: are the rest of us so polarized already that we can conceive no strategy, no course of action, other that to aggreviate and escalate the situation?

“For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?”

You ask “are imprecatory prayers UnBiblical?”

Robert, I suppose that according to the letter of the Law, imprecatory prayers may be Biblical (although I am not sure who is worthy to pray in that manner except Christ Jesus alone)… what I am sure of however is that “Imprecatory Attitudes” are not Biblical at all.

As one who is painfully aware of my own unrighteousness I will stick to praying for the salvation of the lost, and that the Lords will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

:I have read some good, conservative commentators who have said, "all of the Bible is for us, not not all of it was written to us." That would seem to suggest to me that not everything that was part of the Abrahamic Covenant applies to the church today under the New Covenant. If correct, it would explain why Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." I am sure you are aware that the word piadagogon is mistranslated here, that the word actually referred to a slave who had the authority to discipline (whip or beat) a student who failed to learn his lesson rather than the teacher himself, hence the NIV translation as "under supervision" instead. It would also seem to me to explain why Jesus asked the father to forgive those who crucified Him, rather than calling on the Father to damn them or even stop them."

I believe that would put you out of Reformed framework to a Dispensational or another antinomian framework.That is because the reformers understood the law in terms of three uses not just two.Please see this brief article for a better understanding of Calvins three uses of the law. It is fairly brief.

I think I am working on a similiar theme as others here,..but to pray imprecatorially is an interesting thought. The deed and command of praying in such a manner rests in the intentions of the offended and how they are informed. Wiley or anyone else is without excuse, since God has given a higher law superseded by the very act of Christ alone. Christ did not pray a prayer of imprecation as we see played out in the recent news, and as Lydia has intimated, …nor should we imitate Wiley as we follow Christ.

Don’t hear me wrong…we certainly learn from the Psalmist, yet we use the wisdom given through the abiding Spirit of Christ in us to inform our understanding of prayer and how God avails such prayer. The intention of an imprecatory prayer that leans toward vengeance is unknown with respect to the gospel.

John, It sounds like you are saying that if a person of non-color (white) makes a statement about a person of color’s comment concerning race, that he or she has obviously made the leap to being a racist, because we can know nothing about his or her situation. I would vote against such a resolution because I oppose the President’s agenda and policies, not because of his race. I would vote against such a resolution if it were celebrating the first woman president, if such president (Clinton) had similar policies.The truly sad thing is that the SBC will be in a lose-lose situation. If said resolution passes, we will be seen(by the liberal elite) as supporting the presidents policies on life, sexual orientation, Islam, taxation, etc. If said resolution is defeated, we will be labeled as (in your words) deep-south racists.

Jeff:Two reasons I have not answered the question.1)I asked my question first...this is logical! It was asked on the previous post.2)I would like to drive the conversation toward Scripture solutions...not the attack of persons. How Then shall we live ...so to speak.

The problem with OT examples is that it presumes we are still under the old Law. So it would be better to concentrate on passages everyone agrees are aimed at NT believers. I don't think we can go wrong quoting Paul, so here are some verses that need to be reconciled:

2 Timothy 4:14Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done.

1 Corinthians 16:22If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed!

Galatians 1:8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse!

Galatians 3:10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse

--------------------

Romans 12:14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

1 Corinthians 4:12We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it;

=====================

Personally, I reconcile them by checking to see who Paul is talking about. It seems to me that he is harsh on any who knowingly oppose the faith, but passive to those who do so in ignorance-- as he himself once did: "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief." (1 Timothy 1:13)

I really believe when I read all of Robert's comments he is agreeing with Wiley Drake both about Dr. Tiller and our current President, but just is not willing to outright say he does. He just wants to ask all of the questions.

John Fariss:I was the one who made the point about Dwight McKissic . I assume you understand the whole history behind Dwight and his public role in the SBC. I also will assume you know that Eric Redmond is black. So is Dwight McKissic support of Obama Christocentric or Afrocentric(ethnocentric).....I think Eric Redmond made the better argument for not supporting Obama.

You are right: I am unashamedly outside of the Reformer/Calvinist tradition, although I can, at least guardedly, affirm some points of the TULIP. However, and with all respect, I am not any sort of a dispensationalist or antinomian. In fact, I am not at all sure I have said enough of what I believe to be corectly "classiffied." At any rate, those are not the only alternatives to Reformed theology/Calvinism.

I don't think I meant to be that extreme, regardless of what my comment sounded like. One may certainly make a statement involving race (though I would hesitate to say ABOUT race) without being racist. Beyond that, I don't have time to get details just now; maybe tonight.

Perhaps in David's Psalm, we are given a glimpse into his troubled soul; not an 'example' for how to deal with someone who has offended us or 'offended God'.

In my religion, it is a good thing that every year, at the beginning of the holy season of repentance, we receive ashes, in the form of a cross, on our foreheads. And the priest says 'REMEMBER, that thou are dust and to dust thou shalt return.' A reminder of our humble state, in need of repentance as a whole Christian community.

God has a way of dealing with His Enemies. It doesn't involve some pastor or priest publicly inciting a seriously emotional disturbed man to commit a murder.No. When we Christian 'sinners' start 'naming the names of other sinners' and asking God to destroy THEM, what are we? What have we become? WHO are we, as individuals, to say to anyone, 'you are a sinner'?

Honestly, if we are going to point out sinners, we had better include ourselves in a common confession, or we appear prideful in the eyes of God, as we well are taught in th Book of Proverbs.

It is the Holy Spirit who convicts and leads to repentance, it is not the 'blind leading the blind'.

Robert has asked is 'imprecatory prayer' biblical. There is David's use of it. But David was a sinner. And he had weaknesses.We do not follow David's example here.

David also, to his credit, prayed that God would change Saul's heart and bring him to repentance.

If we are Christ-centered, we have been taught a different Way from cursing 'enemies'.

Perhaps we need to remember just Who it is that we follow, in the way we relate to each other and to Our Lord. Believe me, the two are intertwined: our treatment of our brothers directly reflects our relationship with Christ and His Love.

Even the rabbis tell us it is forbidden to 'name names' before God and demand the demise of another.

And in my own Church, those extremists (yes, we have them too) who would dare to pray for someone's murder or demise are 'anathema', because they are breaking the commandments of Our Lord. They are called to repent.

Wiley Drake is ill, either emotionally, or perhaps all is not well in his soul. We can see that something is very wrong. He needs help. But he also needs to be discredited before another seriously-ill person acts out Wiley's wishes.

I think the SBC will know what to do about this, if it is handled prayerfully, seeking God's wisdom, so that Wiley is not a 'threat' to his own soul or to the welfare of any other individuals. I sure wouldn't worry about the SBC's 'reputation' here, please!Something much more important is at stake.

Where is the TRADITION of calling down curses on named individuals or organizations in the larger Christian community? It's just not there. Nor is it the norm in the Judaic community, according to my friends of that faith. Only God knows who His true enemies are and He does not need us sinners to condemn ourselves by condemning others.

When was it ever a tradition in the Baptist faith to curse one's enemies? If it was, I do not know of it. Perhaps the 'B.I.' people do not know their own Baptist heritage. The B.I. have produced some very harmful fruit from their new 'doctrines', I think.

SINCE the Pecatory Psalms specifically show the inner emotions of the writer and are actually exposing the inner feelings of a person who was often fearful, depressed, angry and hurt, [some of them even felt like life ended at death and there was nothing else.] they often asked God to deal ruthlessly with their enemy.

SINCE Paul said our enemies are NOT flesh and blood but spiritual, we would be wise to see that the Cross is the work of God against all spiritual wickeness in high places and announce THAT fact. [The gospel]

SINCE Paul also said, "These things [including the impecatory psalms] were written for our instruction and since our greatest enemies are now within, it might be wise to pray the impecable prayers against our own coveteousness, addiction to food and drink, jealousy, pride, lying and the things that would destroy us and bring depression, anger, hate, prejudice, fearfulness and general uselessness to the Body of Christ.

Jesus was saying this in the same vivid way the psalmist did when He said , "If your right eye offends [causes you to sin] pluck it out."

Surly we would not try to escape our responsibility by calling down God's wrath against the distributor of food or drink or our fellow worker promoted over us?

I can't say that I have not been tempted to pray violence against my enemies; however, in the end, I always felt my heart was more wicked than any whom I might pray against and therefore I repented. Lets hope all Southern Baptists will repent of their self righteousness so that God's correction does not fall upon us.

Would every one please put the "R" in the correct word. How I could get it in my mind incorrectly for the entire writing of a comment I don't know. And you'll have to trust me that I DO know how to spell it.

I can only assume that since I was writing in frustration at some of what I was reading and was wanting to vent, [ to some degree] the Lord has had a good laugh, as I have, at me for my judgmental frustration. This is too funny.

Is there something about the reconciliation of Jew and Greek, or also black and white, that is not Christocentric? Could it be that the reconciliation of races is just as much to the glory of God as is the cesation of abortion? Does he really have to be focused more on being black than on Christ in order to be thankful for race relations stepping forward?

All,

As to the matter of imprecatory prayers, I have to say that they are absolutely biblical. That does not make them prescriptive for either Christian or Jewish practice. They reveal the depths of pain and suffering delved into by even God's chosen people. They reveal the open intimacy that one can have with God. They reveal that there is no emotion that God cannot take from us and redeemed to God's glory.

That does not sanctify our anger our cruelty. Nor does it permit our open expression of such fallenness to the world. The imprecatory psalms give us comfort that we are not the only ones to have felt rejected and disempowered. They give us permission to vent our frustrations. They do not give permission to expect their fulfillment.

Good question but I think the answer is no because really the reconciliation that you describe is only superficial. A resolution will not make Obama more Christocentric. Whereas a vote for pro-life and other issues is indicativeof Christian values. That is why a pagan who votes pro-life is better than a Christian who votes pro-abort.

I'm not so schooled in the Bible as to know this ... I do realize imprecatory prayers are Biblical, as in the Psalms ... but are they Biblical in the New Testament (as in testimony as to Jesus Christ) sense? If they're not Biblical in that sense, then they are Biblical in the sense that stoning of adulterers is Biblical.

Considering Jesus' own words, I believe Rev. Drake's words are about as bad an example of Christian behavior as I can imagine, short of shooting someone.

And I am also reminded that, while Jesus might tell us to pray for our enemies and those in authority over us, God also did use Babylonians and Roman guards to carry out His work, when He so chose.

Oh my goodness, do I ever NOT deserve your wonderful comment on the last post. I thought it was a lovely thing to say, but I am NOT some wise woman to learn from. All I can do is point to Christ the Lord. And all I can recommend is to pray for the grace to follow His Way. The map is in the Gospels. But I think you know that already. :) I can tell.

I'm sorry you had a difficult childhood in a judgmental church.But you survived. As you know, some did not.

They need our compassion and prayer. Once again, the directions for how to do this are in the Gospels: the Words and Actions of Our Lord. Take His Words into your heart always. He will show how to see past 'arrogance' and into that place where your brothers are hurting. Your frustration with those who are 'arrogant' will evaporate into patience, and you will become more peaceful. Directions are in the Gospels: I promise. Thanks again for your kindness to me. Love, L's

P.S. My inspirations have included an old kindly rabbi and a severely developmentally-disabled child who cannot speak. This sounds strange, but, each, in their own way, pointed to Christ. God's Ways are truly mysterious.L's

Robert,Re: Christocentric vs. Afrocentric. I have thought about this most of the afternoon (off and on, at least), and I have concluded that the question is one of those, "Do you still beat your wife?" ones, where any answer at all is to concede your point. But as with all such questions, it presents a false dichotemy. If your question is fair and accurate, then the prophets were not being theocentric when instead of proclaiming the majesty ands power of God, or the coming of His Christ, they adminished merchants to be fair, not to use one set of weights to buy and another to sell, and condemned those who took people into slavery as payment of debts. Do you really want to accuse Amos and other prophets of that? For that matter, if your question is fair and accurate, then Jesus Himself was not being Christcentric in the latter part of Matthew 25, when he told about the sheep and the goats. Do you really want to accuse Him of that?

I agree with you about the "BI" movement being dangerous in a similar way.

That similiar way is when someone disagrees with another about issues like Spiritual gifts, Ecclesiology, Calvinism, total abstinence, [non-salvific issues] and holds the one disagreed with as the enemy of God and His Word, which so many in the "BI" group I READ seem to do, we've got a major problem in the SBC.

I know it isn't the differing views on the above issues that's the problem. That's baptistic after all. It is viewing the other side as enemies instead of family.I, like you, do NOT believe the majority of the SBC churches and people hold to that philosophy.

I believe I would say the same thing were it to be a group holding to the five-points that I hold to having that philosophy about free-will folks.

As you know, the one [Wiley's words] is easily seen as wrong. It is easily seen as damaging to truth and unity of purpose and as being non-loving.

The other.. [BI words saying much the same thing over other issues, while certainly stopping short of calling for their death, just seeing them as the enemy of God and His word].. is not so easily seen. But it is just as wrong. It too will be damaging to truth and unity of purpose and should be seen as being non-loving. I think the SBC is in danger from either.

Unless I'm missing something, that was your purpose in posting. I don't see it, nor do you I know, as anything about the person, Wiley or anyone else. Just a person's/peoples belief system that we believe could be damaging to a drifting SBC.

The SBC I know and have known for half a century doesn't see it that way yet. I hope we never do.

I know some may disagree with my assessment but it's the way I see it as I've traveled and gotten to know people in every group that can possibly be found making up the SBC.

I know your experience with some in the IMB have thrust you to the forefront of alerting us all about this and, thus, your post. We ARE at a crossroads.

Short on time:I’ve enjoyed a lot of good comments and disagreed with many. Isn’t that the right of Baptists? :)

Are we never to ask God to curse anyone? What about (1 Galatians 1:8-9) or is that an “illusion” noted by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy? :)

“Let God’s curse fall on anyone…who preaches any other way to be saved…if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. I will say it again: if anyone preaches any other Gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon him.”

Murder is sin. “I will smite the Shepard.” Did God murder his Son? No He executed his Son for the penalty of our sins.

In my opinion, the Dr. murdered babies. The question is did the killer murder a murderer, or did he execute a murderer? I would not want to be on the jury

Robert, Since you do not fight fair (the above is not nice), I am going to ask you to list all the OT laws that we are commanded to obey. Then I ask you to put an asterisk besides the ones mentioned in the NT.

Please do not link to a lengthy article on the topic. Cut and paste if you must but leave out the editorializing. Just the laws, please. And please, no links with Dr. Spock as the metaphorical anti christ. :o)

One more testimony to the hateful theology of fundamentalism. He places himself among the ranks of religious extremists. Jesus called up to love our enemies, to pray for them, and to leave the results to God. The views of this man are heretical. He should be shot.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the irony of this post and comment thread is striking!

So, those who hold to a "BI" ideology (that Baptists ought to teach and practice Baptist distinctives) are "non-loving", "dangerous", should be denounced because they might disrupt the SBC's "truth and unity of purpose", and that THEY view " the other side as enemies instead of family."

YET... YET... you are doing the same thing you are denouncing! O' the irony of labeling the "BI" as enemies of God and His word, while denouncing the "BI" for labeling people as enemies of God and His word.

You know, this weekend I had an epiphany--if you're concerned about false teachers like Wiley Drake then belonging to a bible believing local church is a great way to avoid them. A church that is unified in the truth and stands true to biblical doctrine is not one where someone with goofball theology will want to be.

For instance, we had a couple visiting our new members class. They had been coming for a few weeks. The pastor who was teaching the class was giving our overview of theology. He read statements that spelled out that our church is complementarian. The wife asked "So you believe that men and women have different roles". "Yes" The pastor also read that we teach that the Bible IS the word of God and the wife chirped "Do you mean 'contains' the word of God? There are some things in the bible that aren't scripture, right?" "We teach that the Bible is the word of God and not that it 'contains' the word of God." The couple also shot each other a look when the pastor read that homosexual relations is always sinful without any exceptions.

They left after the class--didn't even stay for the service. I love my church.

let's stop pastor darrell gilyard together > The Trail of Tears.Since the plea bargain I have received so many emails from caring people from my past, people that also watched Darrell Gilyard preach back in the late 80's early 90's and revered him. Most of these people knew of my situation with him and also of the scandal that that all became public once his past was fully seen. But there are still many that simply did not know and are now shocked. They wondered what happened to him, why he wasn't a regular at First Baptist any longer, but assumed he just moved on. There have been pictures of our church youth group tour days posted on the popular "facebook" site, in many of these Darrell is sitting in a pew with his arms around teen girls and no one thought much of it. They have held onto the pictures and just see the memories of being with this "famous pastor" and of the fun we had as a huge group of kids that love the Lord and were on the road telling people about Jesus. No one really saw any red flags, atleast not any that they mentioned. Why, you may ask? Because he was presented to us as a Pastor/Evangelist that we were very blessed to have the honor of touring with, and because we should have been able to trust him. Because people just don't think to be careful of a Pastor, to be weary of "innappropriate behavior". I am sure at that time if anyone had a "complaint" it would have been scrutinized and maybe even blamed as "overactive teen imagination". After all, this is the "great Darrell Gilyard", a famous southern Baptist Preacher. Many were fooled, epecially his victims.

Looks like there is a Stephen (me) and a Steven on here. Steven (not me) made the statement "He should be shot", not Stephen (me). Now, I may agree with the sentiment behind the statement, but not the literal interpretation. Given that caveat, I actually agree with Steven (not me).

Paula and Lydia: Y'all are right on the money!!

Paula: The issue of Christianity and the American revolution is a most interesting one. I am glad we can take an objective look at issues like that. Christians should also examine themselves regarding historical interpretation so as to refrian from being a cultural Christian. I suggest you read "The Search for Christian America" if you have not already.

And I'll see what I can find on that book you mentioned, which I don't recall reading.

Joe B.

You never showed me that verse which labels "women preachers" as a sin. Do you concede no such verse exists?

Also, I implore you to read my book, Nicolaitan (near bottom of first list), for a thorough Bible study on the matter of hierarchy in Christianity, whether it's between an alleged clergy and laity or between men and women. "Complementarian" is no more than a euphemism for "male supremacism", which I find to be at odds with "not so among you".

I do not agree with what Wiley said about praying for the President's death. Personally, I pray for the safety of his family as well as the President himself. I think people can disagree with the President but that should not include wanting to see him harmed.

"So, those who hold to a "BI" ideology (that Baptists ought to teach and practice Baptist distinctives) are "non-loving", "dangerous", should be denounced because they might disrupt the SBC's "truth and unity of purpose", and that THEY view " the other side as enemies instead of family."

It isn't the first part of your statement that is at issue. For crying out loud to teach "baptist distinctives" til you're blue in the face is baptistic after all.

It is the last part that is problematic. The non-loving, dangerous, disruptive of fellowship as family has ONLY to do with..."and that THEY view " the other side as enemies instead of family."

I would appreciate you showing me where I said the one who holds to baptist identity ideas is my enemy and not my family. I would like to apologize for having said that. It is totally contrary to what I think and believe. If you would, point out where it is for me. I'm going to get a haircut but when I return I WILL make an apology.

I tried the link you gave, http://www.monergism.com/christs_use_of_the_law_to., but it appears to be broken. I did, however, go to www.monergism.com and read an (anything but brief) article titled, "How Does the Christian Relate to the Law of Moses?" by a Rev. Robert A. Lotzer. He said, "The fact that the confession limits the 'perfect rule of righteousness' to the Ten Commandments is because the confession is going to go on to point out that almost all of the laws given to Israel have been either 'abrogated' or have 'expired' in the New Testament." To my limited mind, this seems to support my contention that "All the Bible was writen for us, but not all of it was written to us" rather than what I perceive your contention to be. Am I misunderstanding this about Calvinism, or did I misunderstand your position--or do you disagree with Rev. Lotzer's position?

I know Wade prides himself on what he writes. Many times he has claimed to "stand by every word" he has written on this blog. He also points out where other bloggers delete comments and make alterations to their original posts. However, I submit to you that Wade often does the same thing he complains about.

Paul, I do not know if you read the "original" post on this subject. It appears that Wade has altered the final paragraphs. The "original" post had several derogatory comments about BI folks as well as a link to Peter Lumpkins blog. That is why if you read the comments at the top, men like Dave Miller, Les Puryear, and Chris Ryan all questioned this post as a "low blow".

Forgive me, as I am unable to point out where you specifically said... "The BI is my enemy." I guess I inferred your support of this post... coupled together with a denunciation of BI ideology with Wiley Drake, name calling like "non-loving" and "dangerous", as well as seeing them as a threat to the SBC purpose and unity... as them sounding more like an enemy than family.

I agree with Paul that you will be hard-pressed to find anyone here who would discourage the teaching of Baptist distinctives. It is the spirit in which they are taught that has many discouraged. When everyone else is our enemy, including fellow Christians, something seems amiss.

But let me also add that I have been very concerned by what some have determined are Baptist distinctives. Alchohol abstinance is not a Baptist distinctive: it has only been around since shortly before Prohibition. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are Baptist distinctives: different brands of Baptists have believed in both. No women pastors is not a Baptist distinctive: Baptists in England and early America both employed women pastors.

Yet I have experienced it so that each of these points have been made matters of Baptist fellowship. That is just wrong, in my opinion. It is a travesty. And it derails the focus from what Baptists truly have been about since our founding.

Sorry I could not get back to you last night. Wade has posted a new article, so this one is probably towards of its life cycle, but I did not want you to think I was ignoring your questions.

My comment was, "Maybe--MAYBE--if you had lived as a minority, you would have the right to judge whether or not Brother Dwight is too much focused on 'blackness' and too little focused on Gospel; but unless you are, I challenge your right to assert that." Having re-read it, I would say that it does overstate my position, because that implies one cannot comment on racism unless one is a minority. What I meant was that unless a person has really grappled with racism, he (or she) has too small a comprehension of all its forms and nuances. As I said earlier, I am from the Deep South, and am old enough to have been raised in a legally segregated system. Like President Jimmy Carter's confession of his childhood, I thought little of it, and simply accepted it as normative. However, several life experiences (too lengthy for this comment)changed that for me, and helped me to have some comprehension of prejudice, though still lass than an African-American would have. The comment to which I was responding simply "got under my skin" as being overly sensitive to an assucation of racism on the part of an African-American minister, which I did not and do not believe is valid.

You said, "I would vote against such a resolution because I oppose the President’s agenda and policies, not because of his race. I would vote against such a resolution if it were celebrating the first woman president, if such president (Clinton) had similar policies." I respect that, but I respectfully disagree with it too. I believe we can affirm something about an individual without afirming everything about that person--for instance, at state conventions, we routinely pass resolutions affirming the city in which we meet, and sometimes the mayor of that city; all of those cities have things with which "we" disagree (from liquor sales to abortion clinics to slums), and none of the mayors have policies with which "we" would totally agree. But "we" still rightly affirm them for their hospitality, or some particular part of what they do. I believe we can affirm President Obama on the same footing. It is possible that it will put us in a " lose-lose situation" as you suggest, at least by some. But that someone else may misunderstand or misrepresent our actions should not keep us from doing what is right. I think God can sort it all out, and in the final analysis, THAT is who we should aim to please.

I amen your last comment to Joe White. Our fellowship in the SBC is being fragmented by adding these extra items. It is one of the reasons the SBC is in a serious decline.

There is a local KJV only independent Baptist church that had the following sign recently--"Everyone Welcome"--but try walking into that church with anything other than a KJV 1611 Bible and you'll see how welcome you are.

More and more people are being made to feel not welcome in the SBC and they are leaving.

I DO agree with this post, whose point is that to hold that one who differs with certain SBC leaders on non-salvific issues, like total abstinence for example,and then makes that one an enemy of God and His Word, has started down the path to the perverted view seen in Wiley Drake praying for the destruction of a man and believing his prayer was answered when that man is murdered.

The link was NOT to the person, Peter Lumpkin, but to the words at the left side of his blog post by Dr. Patterson. [Because that wasn't clear Wade reported the link was removed.]

"A postmodern era of indulgence brands advocacy of abstinence from beverage alcohol as legalism worthy of the Pharisees, even as it gurgles its way to an ever-increasing embrace of the world. But Peter Lumpkins in Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence demonstrates why abstinence not only is wisdom but also a matter of obedience to Christ and holiness before God."

No problem with him [Dr. Patterson] viewing my personal disagreement with the total abstinence position as being incorrect. We can disagree with each other on that. We're baptists.

A real problem however, is his view that total abstinence is the ONLY view that is total obedience to Christ. I really disagree there. But, hey, we can serve together and love each other.

I completely disagree with him that total abstinence is "holiness before God." My holiness is Christ Himself NOT that drink does not pass my lips. I would want to be careful were he to preach that in my pulpit that I would gently put a differing view before the people.

But the REAL problem becomes when it becomes [or people WANT it to be] SBC policy for someone to hold to a certain view of abstinence, or a private prayer language, or NOT hold to a Calvinistic view on the atonement, or a certain ecclesiology, in order to be appointed as a missionary or to be a leader in baptist life or to even be viewed AS A BAPTIST.

One HAS happened and the danger is ALL could become a test of being baptist missionaries or leaders or even thought of as baptist.

The Bible states All liars shall have their place in the lake of fire.

I know you know this verse from Revelation, and so you won't be offended with me quoting it before I ask you a question.

You wrote above:

It appears that Wade has altered the final paragraphs. The "original" post had several derogatory comments about BI folks as well as a link to Peter Lumpkins blog.

Dear Joe, you cannot post the derogatory comments about BI people to which you refer because there were none - not one. I simply delinked from a Baptist Identity blog - never saying anything derogatory of any person.

Now, I assume you did not intentionally lie to all the people in this comment stream, so I will give you the opportunity to delete your comment or recant your unintentional untruth.

1) That you changed and altered the "original post"? ... TRUE. In fact the final paragraph(s) is missing; written over with an "update".

2) That your post had "derogatory" comments in it toward BI folks? ... TRUE. Derogatory -- adjective... meaning"tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing; disparaging; depreciatory". In fact, this entire post is derogatory. Instead of just rightly denouncing Wiley Drake and his views, you instead sought to demean "Baptist Identity Fundamentalism". That you singled out BI people and not just their ideology is witnessed in the comments of Dave Miller, msvoboda, Les Puryear, Chris Ryan, Mike Fox, Blake, Doug Mize, RKSOKC66, and kersham. Evidently they all read the "original" post the way I did.

3) That you had a link to Peter Lumpkin's blog? ... TRUE. You had linked to Peter's blog in the "original post", identifying him (or it) as an example of what you were talking about. There was no mention of any comment to the side as your father has suggested (at least not that I can recall).

Wade, you cannot just take down half your post and pretend that you did not write it. You call on me to post the negative comments you made or delete my comment. I call on you to put up again the "original post" in its entirety. Let's just be totally transparent. You call on me to "recant" of an untruth. I call on you to repent of the sin of sowing discord.

The "update" was not written over the final paragraph? I suppose you are trying to argue a technicality. However, whether the update was actually "written over" the final paragraph... or if the final paragraph was removed first and then the update added is of little consequence. Ultimately, the fact must remain... this post was altered. TRUE.

What is also true is that this post was originally linked to Peter's blog. It was linked without any hint of it being to point out a difference in "ideology". In fact, your first post in this comment thread says... "To all: Let me be clear."

The fact must also remain that Wiley Drake's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the Baptist Identity movement. Therefore, this entire post rings hollow.

The truly sad thing is that you consider those of us who love the SBC and our Baptist heritage as being on the "fringe"... while you continue to champion the causes of deviating and desultory doctrines.

No words, no sentences, no paragraph(s) were deleted from the original post. I find it odd that you keep saying "the last paragraph" was deleted. All I did was ADD a paragraph (an update), deleting nothing.

So, Joe, your words are an untruth. You allege I deleted from the original post, and I quote, several derogatory comments about BI folks .

"No words, no sentences, no paragraph(s) were deleted. Your words, sir, are a lie."

Wade, why do you keep insisting upon this? Too many people read the "original" post for you to skate by on this one. Yes, "words" were deleted! Yes, at least one "sentence" was deleted!

It said (as best I can remember, I guess I need to start copying and pasting your posts)... "For an example of this Baptist Identity Fundamentalism click here www.peterlumpkins.typepad.com".

I know for a fact that the above "words" and "sentence" was deleted from your concluding paragraph. This is most certainly a TRUE statement. It also appeared to be a "derogatory" statement about a person identified with the BI movement. To this fact several men attest in the comment stream.

Wade, your duplicity is showing.

Proverbs 6:14... "Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord." That verse pretty well sums up this "low blow" and "mud slinging" post.

There WAS, very briefly, for only a minute or so, a post about the church that is asking people to bring guns on Sunday. It was up just for a twinkling of an eye, and then removed. There were no comments. Is it possible that Joe White saw this, and thought something had been 'deleted' that pertained to his own concerns?

Wade,As much as I hate to take up for Joe White who is taking up for Peter, I believe your ‘original’ post had something about Peter, or Dave Miller would not have said on Monday June 8, 12:41 AM:

“I have had more than my share of go-rounds with Peter Lumpkins, but I think this article unfairly linked him to Wiley Drake’s views…Peter actually wrote that Tiller’s murder was ‘wicked’ and in no way supported Drake’s imprecatory approach. Low Blow, in my opinion.”

Also, msvoboda said on Monday June 8 12:45 AM:

“Dave is right; this is a low blow and nothing more. To link Peter Lumpkins with Drake is quite pathetic, to say the very least.”

As a ‘sermon’ from the ‘pew’ to a pastor: The ‘greatness’ of a team is not how they win but how they lose, and the difference of accepting correction by King Saul and King David.

Nothing was deleted. The link was simply delinked. No words changed, altered or removed. It reminds me of the time one of our BI friends accused me of changing time stamps, only to be told by other bloggers that someone using Blogger (ike I do) cannot change time stamps. Then, those same bloggers caught the person accusing me of changing time stamps of doing the very thing he was accusing others of doing (using Wordpress).